California Supreme Court activity for the week of September 1, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

  • A Petition for Review was granted in Parks v. MBNA (May 12, 2010) (whether state statute establishing a disclosure requirement for preprinted checks constitutes an impairment of the power of the issuing bank sufficient to trigger preemption under the National Bank Act)
  • A Request for Depublication was denied in Bomersheim v. Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian Center (May 26, 2010) (reversed denial  of class certification in a negligence class action)

Elena Kagan confirmed as newest Supreme Court Justice

/

By a vote of 63-37, the Senate today confirmed Elena Kagan as the newest Supreme Court Justice.  Predicting what will come of this is pointless, but several observations suggest that little will change immediately from this confirmation.  Kagan is believed to be liberal, but she replaces John Paul Stevens, the Justice viewed as the leader of the liberal segment of the Court.  Thus, she isn't likely to have an immediate impact on the idealogical balance of the Court unless she proves to be one of the occasional wildcard Supreme Court Justices that come along every so often.  In the long term, her age makes it likely that the seat will remain a liberal seat for many decades.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of June 7, 2010

/

After two weeks with no conferences, the California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  The only marginally notable result I see is:

  • A non-substantive correction to the opinion in Martinez v. Combs (June 9, 2010) (expansive definition of "employee" for certain labor code violations) was issued.  The decision was mentioned on this blog here.

Brinker Watch 2010 - Version 2

/

In March of this year, I observed that Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) was fully briefed back in October 2009.  At that time, I moved the over-under on an Opinion release date from August 2010 to October 2010.  I regret to inform anyone with office pools that I must now make a second, larger move of the line and set the over-under at February 2011.

The problem arises because the Supreme Court is done hearing cases for Summer 2010.  As you can see here, July and August will have no case arguments.  September is the earliest that Brinker could be placed on an oral argument calendar.  For purposes of wagering only (which I fully support but will not participate in), I'm guessing that the argument occurs in November, resulting in a February 2011 opinion release target date.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of May 10, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

  • A Petition for Review and depublication was denied in Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc., et al., 181 Cal. App. 4th 1286 (February 8, 2010), (detailed analysis of certification standard as applied to various wage & hour claims) discussed on this blog here.  This opinion has already influenced trial courts considering certification motions in the wage & hour context.

I don't see anything else in this week's conference summary that would be of interest here.  If I missed anything after my very quick scan, I will update this post.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of April 26, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

  • A Petition for Review was granted in Pellegrino v. Robert Half International, Inc. (February 25, 2010) (G039985), (reversed trial court order decertifying class after applying Tobacco II) - discussed on this blog here.  The matter will be HELD pending resolution of the lead case, Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual), Case No. S156555.  The issue for review is the applicability of the administrative overtime exemption to claims adjusters.  The second opinion in Pellegrino does not appear to be under review, based upon the Supreme Court docket.
  • A Petition for Review and depublication was denied in Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan v. Oakley, Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1542 (Jan. 13, 2010) (held: if plaintiffs claim that their lawsuit was the catalyst to action by the defendant, the pre-lawsuit notification requirement applies not only when fees are sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, pursuant to Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine).  The decision is consistent with Abouab v. City and County of San Francisco, 141 Cal. App. 4th 643 (2006).
  • A Petition for Review was denied in Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 181 Cal. App. 4th 471 (January 27, 2010) (held: community of interest adequately alleged in putative class action such that defendant's demurrer should have been denied) - discussed on this blog here.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of April 12, 2010

/

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference today.  Notable results include:

  • A Petition for Review and Request for Depublication were both denied in Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc. (January 7, 2010), (reversed trial court order decertifying class after applying Tobacco II) - discussed on this blog here.  It appears from this denial that the California Supreme Court is in no rush to take up Tobacco II issues again.
  • A Petition for Review was denied in Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (Dec. 31, 2009) (affirming final approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees award)
  • A Petition for Review was denied in Steroid Hormone Product Cases (January 21, 2010, as mod. Feb. 8, 2010) - discussed on this blog here and here.  This denial is more significant than the denial in Weinstat because of the very strong criticism of Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009).

Brinker Watch 2010

/

If you were in a coma for a while, Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) was fully briefed back in October 2009.  And...that's it.  Other than a striking new logo for 2010, there is no news.  I post this only because this blog receives traffic from Brinker searches on an almost daily basis.  I should have added some sort of extra bit to the logo, like "Now with EXTRA uncertainty...."  Back in September 2009 I moved my estimate for an Opinion release date out from June 2010 to August 2010.  The notice of argument would need to issue in April to make that August Opinion release date a near certainty.  Thus, I need to adjust the over-under to October 2010 to equalize the wagering.  Place your bets, folks.

The cuts continue; L.A. Court loses hundreds of employees

/

One day after running my Perspective column, entitled "Legislature Using Purse Strings to Bind Judiciary," the Daily Journal has published a story today that chronicles the massive cuts to the Los Angeles County Superior Court system.  Rebecca U. Cho & Catherine Ho, Hundreds Of L.A. Court Workers to Be Laid Off Today (March 16, 2010) www.dailyjournal.com [subscription required]. 

329 employees are scheduled to receive pink slips today.  In addition, it is reported that 12 courtrooms will close, but the specifics have not been announced.    The Los Angeles Superior Court currently plan to lay off an additional 500 employees in September.  Los Angeles court officials are reportedly "facing a $79 million budget deficit in the current fiscal year, which is expected to grow to $120 million next year." Judge Charles McCoy is reported to have asked the Judicial Council for permission to use court construction funds for court operations.

In an article by the Los Angeles Times, Presiding Judge McCoy's missing to communicate the court funding crisis was described:

Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Charles "Tim" McCoy's message is loud and clear: His court system, the largest trial court in the nation, is facing deep fiscal trouble in the years ahead due to drastic cuts in state government funding.

Victoria Kim, L.A. County's top judge faces steep opposition to fund diversion proposal (February 16, 2010).  In that article, the uphill battle in front of Judge McCoy is spelled out.  According to Ann O'Malley. O'Malley, who chairs the state's Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, 53 presiding judges of the state's 58 trial courts have told her they oppose Judge McCoy's proposed use of the construction fund to cover operating expenses.

If it is even necessary to consider layoffs of hundreds of employees or utilizing a court construction fund backed by bonds, not budget appropriations, to support basic operations, something is seriously awry in California's budgeting process.  Whether or not you agree with Judge McCoy's specific predictions and approach to the problem, there is no disputing that a problem of colossal magnitude now exists.  Pretty soon we won't need to debate tort reform or amendments to California's class action procedures; nobody will be able to have a civil case heard by a judge before the parties and counsel are all dead of old age.

Daily Journal article on unconstitutionality of underfunding California courts

/

Today's Daily Journal includes a Perspective column, entitled "Legislature Using Purse Strings to Bind Judiciary," authored by colleague Linh Hua and me.  The column discusses in greater detail the unconstitutionality of underfunding the judicial branch.  The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010).

If you have difficulty viewing the flash object, the direct link is here.  I thank the editorial staff of the Daily Journal for quickly providing the posting permission.